If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If I might chime in here, my opinion would be that anything that causes people to doubt that scripture is telling the truth could potentially affect Salvation.

Where does doubt about scripture stop? Or might it eventually cause some to doubt that Jesus is God, so that His atoning sacrifice on the cross was sufficient to pay the debt for all the sins of all humanity for all time?

Bob asked this and I think it helps me to organize my dishevling into a bit of coherence:
Yes, if you understand my statements this way you are correct, and I've stated my position in an over-arching manner in unclarity. It is rather on this particular issue of omniscience and God's relativity to time, or rather better said, the philosophical metaphysical discussions that lead me to be okay with the perplexing and irrational contexts. For basic doctrines and truths I am quite confident in logic for it is from Christ. It is only when discussing with man, truths that are cloudy that I would question my logic or the logic of another and see room for error.

I would liken this to higher math (one area of applied logic). The higher we get in math, the more room for error. Basic math? No question, easy. Imperative truth. Algebra: More difficult but still based on solid truth, but more of the heretics (D and F students) start getting answers wrong. Calculus: Severe drop-out, but clearly we can still discern truth. Once we get to "mathematical analysis and functional analysis" and traverse into string theory it gets complicated. It isn't that truth is not there, but that logic starts having a hard time grasping it and you start getting credit for partial answers so you don't flunk out. We don't even listen to the ones who flunked out of 'basic' math and 'algebra' about higher math because if they couldn't understand basic math there is no way they can comment on Geometry and Calculus, and they think theorems and postulates aren't even mathematical terms. In theology these are the heretics and false teachers.

Back to a glass darkly: I have no problem with 'simple, basic, or other solid' doctrines of faith and logical belief held therein. We are totally on the same page and I don't question my logic whatsoever. No question: If you try to prove to any of us that Salvation can be found anywhere but in Christ we are going to have a serious logic problem dicussion with that heretic (2+2=10). If you say that the trinity is a false doctrine we are all going to have to give a logical dismiss and see it as their problem, not ours (a+5=10; a=4). Once we say however that God exists outside of time or does not exist outside of time we are becoming more speculative and frankly, I've memorized a theorem and would have to go back quite a ways to see why my theorem would be wrong. Some of my theorems are wrong, but not on the 'basic math/algebraic" level. I also hold that most of my theorems are correct logically so I would say that I am not altogether illogical. The only thing I am trying to say is that the higher we go in extrapolations from scripture (it is illogical for God to be outside of time), the less likely I will be able to logically aquiesce (and I would rather say that I am illogical than say you are 'stupid' at that point. 1) because I have a very high view of other believers in Christ whether they agree with me or not. We agree on the 'basic math and algebra' (basic doctrine) implicitly 2) because three fingers always point back which allows me to have an honest pause over how logical I am on the 'higher math/logic' of it 3) because I want to prepare myself for what Christ is preparing for a logic lesson. If I don't concede that my logic has an ability to be faulty I'll just argue. I think this is actually anti-intellectual, anti-logical, and not very gracious to boot. In order to appreciate higher math, you have to be able to see your mistakes and admit them or you learn nothing, albeit, once you get to higher math those mistakes should be far and few between.

If God is constrained to our time, I do not see the truth of it. My logical structure is built upon theorems and postulates that I've used to solve other troubling logical problems over years and they work very well. I would necessarily have to become very illogical to reshuffle and analyze those postulates and theorems (at least through a shuffling process restructuring process).

Here at last is the position: I see a proposition that is not as clear or as truthful as you are proposing (for me). I've read over the posts here and other places to get clarity on this subject and what I am finding is that it is by no means clear and it is by no means agreed upon. It would be very easy to simply walk away and say "My views work very well for me, since there is much debate over this I'm not going to worry about it. I'm just going to keep what works for me here and believe they are wrong."

My only problem is that I love God's people. If they do not agree with me and I believe we have the same faith, I want to know "why?" I want to see their side to at least appreciate it. There are plenty of denominations and we all disagree on the "higher math." Or as you put it "The Deeper Truths" for lack of a better word. My stance is simply to say "I might not understand your view here at all. It may be illogical or I may be illogical on this perspective but I'd like for us to become as logical together as we can."

Why can't other Calvinists be this gracious and this intellectually honest?!

You are never allowed to leave TOL as long as you keep this attitude!

I just hope that you don't turn this higher math analogy into a hidey-hole that you jump into every time you run into a problem that you can't see your way around. I would hope that you would agree with me that a theology which only rarely resorts to this sort of "I don't get it - for now" position is superior to one that seems to hide out there all the time.

Resting in Him,
Clete

"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

Why can't other Calvinists be this gracious and this intellectually honest?!

You are never allowed to leave TOL as long as you keep this attitude!

I just hope that you don't turn this higher math analogy into a hidey-hole that you jump into every time you run into a problem that you can't see your way around. I would hope that you would agree with me that a theology which only rarely resorts to this sort of "I don't get it - for now" position is superior to one that seems to hide out there all the time.

Resting in Him,
Clete

No, but when it does present itself as difficult for me to grasp, I've got to see it as a different level because it first assaults my logical sensibility. At that point I'm like "What am I gonna do here? Am I really going to chuck my reformed doctrine for this? I kind of love this doctrine, but if he is right or can prove he is right, I'm gonna be in irrational mode for awhile again." In other words, I'm totally open to what God would correct in my life, the problem is that when we look at each other's doctrinal stance and go "How can this guy honestly believe this? It just doesn't make any sense." After that, I bring my other logic in to play. "This guy holds in salvation by grace and faith in Christ, perseverance, not just emotional love but commitment to Jesus. And he honors the God of the Bible even if I see some of his theology as whack."

No, but when it does present itself as difficult for me to grasp, I've got to see it as a different level because it first assaults my logical sensibility. At that point I'm like "What am I gonna do here? Am I really going to chuck my reformed doctrine for this? I kind of love this doctrine, but if he is right or can prove he is right in gonna be in irrational mode for awhile again." In other words, I'm totally open to what God would correct in my life, the problem is that when we look at each other's doctrinal stance and go "How can this guy honestly believe this? It just doesn't make any sense." After that, I bring my other logic in to play. "This guy holds in salvation by grace, perseverance, not just emotional love but commitment to Jesus. And he honors the God of the Bible even if I see some of his theology as whack."

Let me ask a few tracer questions from a few different angles that will help me understand 1) if time is escapable 2) if I can get perspective on your notion to understand it's logic.

First of all, is time escapable? I read a little of the discussion about the science of time travel into the future and the past. I do not understand the complications of the science and theory of such a proposition but my mind does not dismiss the idea, which would tell me there are possibilities at least in the mind for such.

I was thinking specifically of dreaming. I sometime relive a dream of a past experience and often used to have 'recurring dreams.' Dreams are vivid and real and here is the first question: Do we transcend time in our sleep? It seems to me that we are on a different dimension of consciousness and that the time is different because I am dreaming in real-time, but my dream is happening in another time.

Next, I want to get perspective on your idea that nothing exists outside of time.
Let's use Peter Boyle for this discussion. Peter, the actor who played Raymond's father Frank on "Everybody Loves Raymond" recently died. We know he existed in the past. Peter is no longer here with us. If I can grasp your logic here that nothing exists outside of time, would we say Peter Boyle no longer exists? My proposal would be that he does exist presently but in an altered state. For this discussion, I'm trying to grasp the increments that allow me to grasp time or eternity past so that I can compare and analyze future consideration. It is when we get to future events that my logic begins having a difficulty with the statement "Nothing exists outside of time." If you can state this concept in a way that constrains it to the present and past for consideration, it will help me analyze the truth of the statement that "nothing exists outside of time" for the future.

Here's the difficulty: Does the earth exist right now? (keep in mind your now will be different than my now, my now is in the past but it is my now, now). Did the earth exist in the past? Does the earth exist tomorrow? Answers: Yes/no/yes (yes it exists now, no/ it doesn't exist in "your"(my) now in the present but yes still your now now(present which is now your now now also, although it will be a new now when I read your response).
Does the earth exist in the past? Obviously. Now the tricky part: When you get this, the earth does exist in the future or you cannot read this. Rather I am progressing into the future when you are reading this in 'real-time' but it was written in the past (I'm not presently in your 'now' discussing this. I'm in your past discussing this, (haunting isn't it?)
No, my ghost of typing past will not pass through your screen and scare you, but I'm probably off somewhere eating breakfast lunch or dinner or playing with my kids. Have I somehow traversed time from my past (my now) and traversed into your future? I've at least intellectually done so (crossed a 3-d dimension). Though this future becomes rather 'predictability' in a sense, there are perceived ventures into the future for consideration. 1) I am anticipating an actual real discussion into the future 2) I am applying physical (light and representation from the screen) attributes that will traverse into a future state. Granted my typing is done in the past, but it is speaking to you in your future. Anticipation, in my mind, is an exercise (limited though it may be) into the future, in other words, my mind is able to traverse time while the thinking is done in the 'now.' This troubles my concept that "Nothing exists outside of the past or now."
I have no doubt that God exists in the future because He is eternal, the real question for me isn't a problem with logic then, it is a problem 1) with my understanding 2) the logic question or dilemma. It does not make sense to me that nothing exists in the future. In a way, I'm saying not only does God exist in the future, we exist in the future. Rather it is experience awareness that is constrained to time. Some of this appears to me to be semantics. I have no concept of "I do not exist tomorrow" but I would say logically "I do exist tomorrow."

I had somehow missed your post. I will try to respond tomorrow but if I don't do so, please send me a reminder. I don't want to lose track of this thread.

(If the administration of this website would be so kind as to put a "Mark as Unread" tag somewhere on the User Control Panel, as I have suggested about 2,432,576 times, this sort of thing wouldn't happen.)

Of course Knight knows I'm just teasing him but it really would be nice, wouldn't it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

Read through your post and look for instances where you mix tenses by referring to the past or future in the present tense. It is not that you exist tomorrow but that you will exist tomorrow. It's not that you exist in the past but that existed in the pasted.

See my point?

Resting in Him,
Clete

"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

Read through your post and look for instances where you mix tenses by referring to the past or future in the present tense. It is not that you exist tomorrow but that you will exist tomorrow. It's not that you exist in the past but that existed in the pasted.

See my point?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Yep, of course it was purposeful. Just as in grammatical agreement we do not have logical ability to ascertain verbs outside of the here and now. If I 'existed' in the past, I don't 'exist' there now. When Jesus said however, before Abraham was "I Am" or "I is" we have exactly this problem. It is not, "Before Abraham was, I also was." That would have been easy to say. You may consider that he was using God's Biblical name that Moses was given rather than making a time transcendence or grammatical error and I'm fine with that, because the cult is going to scream bloody murder with that assessment and I would gladly give up my day job to see that. In that simple understanding the Trinity is not only varified but it is demanded and imperative. Either way we look at it, it is win, win. I believe it is both/and actually so for me it truly win/win if I could prove the transcendant question.
The fact that visions are future reality is a strong consideration for God's timelessness.
I can appreciate the constraints of time from an OV perspective. The OV demands a God constrained to time. My perception however is that my understanding and experience is constrained to time, but I do not have to constrain God to my experience and perceptions. Because science is still talking about time in another dimension, it is important to be open to that consideration until that book is closed. My logic stops and concedes on certain questions, but then other considerations jumpstart the mental processes again, like the science discussion and consideration. How do you perceive this? A friend of mine used this analogy: If I have a sharpened pencil, and push on the sharpened end, I can see the eraser end go up. If I were able to make a pencil that was a lightyear in length and did the same thing, I would only be able to perceieve the movement a light year from now on the other end. Since God is able to be at both ends simultaneously how does he perceive the movement? Doesn't He both see the immediate and the light year away? I believe His presence alone transcends our perception of the time frame or at least points to my logical inabilty to verify one concept or the other.

Yep, of course it was purposeful. Just as in grammatical agreement we do not have logical ability to ascertain verbs outside of the here and now. If I 'existed' in the past, I don't 'exist' there now. When Jesus said however, before Abraham was "I Am" or "I is" we have exactly this problem. It is not, "Before Abraham was, I also was." That would have been easy to say. You may consider that he was using God's Biblical name that Moses was given rather than making a time transcendence or grammatical error and I'm fine with that, because the cult is going to scream bloody murder with that assessment and I would gladly give up my day job to see that. In that simple understanding the Trinity is not only varified but it is demanded and imperative. Either way we look at it, it is win, win. I believe it is both/and actually so for me it truly win/win if I could prove the transcendant question.

This is not a win/win for anyone unless your allegiance is to your theology and not to the truth. The truth is NEVER irrational, by definition and if you isogetically use the Bible to support irrational notions such as this you undermine the credibility of the Bible and its message as well as the credibility of the One who wrote it.

You have only your theology to support taking it as a "both/and". Nothing at all in the text supports it. Jesus is claiming to be deity, plain and simple. In fact the deity of Jesus is the theme of the book of John where we find seven uses of "I Am" as a name for God Himself. There is simply no rational way to deny that Jesus' use of it was to claim that He was God. The people who heard Him say it knew instantly what He meant and it is intellectually dishonest of you to ignore that fact to do little or nothing more than to use the phrase to prop up an irrational understanding of the nature of time and God's relationship to it.

The fact that visions are future reality is a strong consideration for God's timelessness.

No such visions have ever existed - ever.
No Biblical prophecy was or is pre-written history, as I have already shown.

I can appreciate the constraints of time from an OV perspective. The OV demands a God constrained to time.

No! God is not constrained by anything! Time does not exist. It is not a thing or a place or a substance. It is an idea. God has and will continue to experience and infinitely long duration of existence and thus, if you'll forgive the expression, has all the time in the world.

My perception however is that my understanding and experience is constrained to time, but I do not have to constrain God to my experience and perceptions.

The only sense in which you are constrained by time is in that you will one day run out of it. That is to say, you will one day die (physically speaking of course). That and you are only able to do so much in a given period of time because of limitations in your strength, speed, intelligence, etc. God does not have these difficulties.

Because science is still talking about time in another dimension, it is important to be open to that consideration until that book is closed.

Well this takes us back to rationality. If you are unwilling to let rational considerations close the book, what will? What could?

My logic stops and concedes on certain questions, but then other considerations jumpstart the mental processes again, like the science discussion and consideration. How do you perceive this? A friend of mine used this analogy: If I have a sharpened pencil, and push on the sharpened end, I can see the eraser end go up. If I were able to make a pencil that was a lightyear in length and did the same thing, I would only be able to perceieve the movement a light year from now on the other end. Since God is able to be at both ends simultaneously how does he perceive the movement? Doesn't He both see the immediate and the light year away? I believe His presence alone transcends our perception of the time frame or at least points to my logical inabilty to verify one concept or the other.

You do understand that just because the light from an event takes a year to get here that the event didn't wait a year to happen, right?

I do not understand how this is at all relevant.

Resting in Him,
Clete

"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

This is not a win/win for anyone unless your allegiance is to your theology and not to the truth. The truth is NEVER irrational, by definition and if you isogetically use the Bible to support irrational notions such as this you undermine the credibility of the Bible and its message as well as the credibility of the One who wrote it.

You have only your theology to support taking it as a "both/and". Nothing at all in the text supports it. Jesus is claiming to be deity, plain and simple. In fact the deity of Jesus is the theme of the book of John where we find seven uses of "I Am" as a name for God Himself. There is simply no rational way to deny that Jesus' use of it was to claim that He was God. The people who heard Him say it knew instantly what He meant and it is intellectually dishonest of you to ignore that fact to do little or nothing more than to use the phrase to prop up an irrational understanding of the nature of time and God's relationship to it.

I disagre with you brother for several reasons. While the assumption of win/win can definitely point to arrogance and prooftexting, that was not my suggestion, but rather that the truth is always win, not the argument, but the doctrine. If Paul calls us to run the race as to win the prize............

Does the text support transcendence? Yes if for no other reason than verb tense. The only argument that would work against this that I am aware of it the name of God. However, the name means "I exist (in the past)" because Abraham is the qualifier. If my theology or 'ex'ogesis is faulty, I am open to this consideration but it looks correct and without fault to me. There are many other texts that suggest His timelessness implicitly. I would doubt we can irradicate CV that easily when the tenure of these scriptures seem to point to this fact naturally, and lend to a natural interpretation.

No such visions have ever existed - ever.
No Biblical prophecy was or is pre-written history, as I have already shown.

I appreciate your position.

No! God is not constrained by anything! Time does not exist. It is not a thing or a place or a substance. It is an idea. God has and will continue to experience and infinitely long duration of existence and thus, if you'll forgive the expression, has all the time in the world.

Science is still disagreeing with you here. While I appreciate your view and see it's probability to a logical extent, this proposition is still in discussion. I actually appreciate this view but the second proposal I'm not following. Just because we have this perception does not mean God is 'limited' to this perception as we are. There are many perceptions we are limited to, but God has no such limitations. He can defy gravity. We can only exist in premptive ways in opposition to gravity and must make concessions for it even in space. God is invisible, we are only able to camoflauge etc.

The only sense in which you are constrained by time is in that you will one day run out of it. That is to say, you will one day die (physically speaking of course). That and you are only able to do so much in a given period of time because of limitations in your strength, speed, intelligence, etc. God does not have these difficulties.

Thanks, this actually is another good example. Is our only point of departure then about God's ability to see future events as if they have already happened?

Well this takes us back to rationality. If you are unwilling to let rational considerations close the book, what will? What could?

It does put a burden on science to be sure. I'll keep looking of course but there are scientist and philosophers still posting in book and URL and are presenting some compelling arguements. On this particular, rather, it is your rational parameter for acceptance. While I appreciate your rationality with this, I'm still in consideration here. This particular will take a bit longer for my considerations because I need to 1)get better understanding 2)analyze and appreciate the disagreements, which is why I'm asking these questions.

You do understand that just because the light from an event takes a year to get here that the event didn't wait a year to happen, right?

I do not understand how this is at all relevant.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Probably a misunderstanding of mine, is the pencil then traveling in motion faster than the speed of light? It would take me a year to discover the motion. If I had a telescope and was able to see the motiion on the otherside, I would either see the motion as instantaneous or over a period of a year? I believe the light reflection dictates that It would be observable a year from now and I would have had to wait a year focusing on the pencil in it's original state as well. Is this correct? For this discussion, God would perceive this as instantaneous, where as I am constrained by time for the future perception.

I disagre with you brother for several reasons. While the assumption of win/win can definitely point to arrogance and prooftexting, that was not my suggestion, but rather that the truth is always win, not the argument, but the doctrine. If Paul calls us to run the race as to win the prize............

Does the text support transcendence? Yes if for no other reason than verb tense. The only argument that would work against this that I am aware of it the name of God. However, the name means "I exist (in the past)" because Abraham is the qualifier. If my theology or 'ex'ogesis is faulty, I am open to this consideration but it looks correct and without fault to me. There are many other texts that suggest His timelessness implicitly. I would doubt we can irradicate CV that easily when the tenure of these scriptures seem to point to this fact naturally, and lend to a natural interpretation.

The highlighted sentence is the crux of this particular issue. Context trumps verb tense and even dictionary definitions. Your taking this phrase where Jesus intentionally takes God's name for His own as some proof-text that He "super-temporal" is just that, proof-texting. Removing phrases from their context in order to make a doctrinal argument is the very definition of isogesis, is it not?

Thanks, this actually is another good example. Is our only point of departure then about God's ability to see future events as if they have already happened?

I'd say that our point of departure is about whether time is ontological.

It does put a burden on science to be sure. I'll keep looking of course but there are scientist and philosophers still posting in book and URL and are presenting some compelling arguments. On this particular, rather, it is your rational parameter for acceptance. While I appreciate your rationality with this, I'm still in consideration here. This particular will take a bit longer for my considerations because I need to 1)get better understanding 2)analyze and appreciate the disagreements, which is why I'm asking these questions.

Well, all I can do is take your word for it. I truly hope (and have no reason to believe otherwise at this point) that this attitude is genuine and not some sort of cop-out.

It does, however make it difficult to debate you.

Probably a misunderstanding of mine, is the pencil then traveling in motion faster than the speed of light? It would take me a year to discover the motion. If I had a telescope and was able to see the motiion on the otherside, I would either see the motion as instantaneous or over a period of a year? I believe the light reflection dictates that It would be observable a year from now and I would have had to wait a year focusing on the pencil in it's original state as well. Is this correct? For this discussion, God would perceive this as instantaneous, where as I am constrained by time for the future perception.

Well the motion you initiated at the base of the pencil would propagate through the shaft of the pencil at a rate something quite a bit slower than the speed of light and so the erasure end would probably not move at all until several decades or centuries after you had initiated the movement and that is only assuming that you have used enough energy in having moved the base for it to actually have what it took to make it all the way to the erasure end to begin with. But if the erasure ever did move then you would not see it happen for a year after the motion actually took place assuming you lived that long.

How God perceives all this is difficult to say. He sees when you initiate the motion, He is aware of the energy propagating down the pencil toward the erasure, He sees the erasure move and is aware of the light travel along in all directions after that motion happens. He further knows what you can see and what you cannot and that there is no way you'd be strong enough to hold a pencil so long in the first place, never mind move it. There is one thing we know for sure. Whether God is "limited" by time or not, He is certainly not limited by light.

Resting in Him,
Clete

"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

The highlighted sentence is the crux of this particular issue. Context trumps verb tense and even dictionary definitions. Your taking this phrase where Jesus intentionally takes God's name for His own as some proof-text that He "super-temporal" is just that, proof-texting. Removing phrases from their context in order to make a doctrinal argument is the very definition of isogesis, is it not?

I'd say that our point of departure is about whether time is ontological.

Well, all I can do is take your word for it. I truly hope (and have no reason to believe otherwise at this point) that this attitude is genuine and not some sort of cop-out.

It does, however make it difficult to debate you.

Well the motion you initiated at the base of the pencil would propagate through the shaft of the pencil at a rate something quite a bit slower than the speed of light and so the erasure end would probably not move at all until several decades or centuries after you had initiated the movement and that is only assuming that you have used enough energy in having moved the base for it to actually have what it took to make it all the way to the erasure end to begin with. But if the erasure ever did move then you would not see it happen for a year after the motion actually took place assuming you lived that long.

How God perceives all this is difficult to say. He sees when you initiate the motion, He is aware of the energy propagating down the pencil toward the erasure, He sees the erasure move and is aware of the light travel along in all directions after that motion happens. He further knows what you can see and what you cannot and that there is no way you'd be strong enough to hold a pencil so long in the first place, never mind move it. There is one thing we know for sure. Whether God is "limited" by time or not, He is certainly not limited by light.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I appreciate you and your posts. I told you my questions would lead to some exasperation. Even if we disagree on these points I very much appreciate your logic, your commitment to His Word, and explaining your position regardless of my limited understanding or tenacity with a transcendant view.

Help me out with your understanding of "Before Abraham was...." and what this means to that particular passage. You do not have to concede this point, I just want you to appreciate that the text is saying something that doesn't lead to a dishonest or ignorant extrapolation. Jesus very much deals with time and knowledge in this passage. You strike a very strong nerve in assessing this name of God as Jesus strongly being deity. There can be no question and I am almost ashamed to bring up the other idea simply because this is THE most important truth to derive from this particular passage. I would very much like you to see the verb tense, but it is of utmost importance that this verse say the first rather than the latter, and it does. After both of our appreciations here, the OV/CV must take a backseat. This is why we are both brothers in the faith, even if there is a squabble in the backseat, I don't want Him to have to pull the car over.

Because my CV understanding (and here I'll say I do not adhere to all of Augustine's theology by any means) is a theological buy-in, it is going to carry bias so I'm continuing to examine that bias in an honest way, you can be sure. I am a slow mover as I hope you would be when your theology camp is stirred. God does not want us to have a doctrine that is easily shaken or blown by prevailing winds and this is especially appreciated about both of our stance. I think debate might carry an arrogance to the contrary "Did you see me totally rip apart his foundation?" But I don't see that as a reality. It might show that one person is a great debater, but anything that skims the surface is a flash-in-the-pan.
Because our long traditional monoliths have stood the test of time, I rather wish to appreciate the pillars they have become much in the same way I would walk into the ancient Anglican and Catholic cathederals. I was Arminian (Methodist) long before I was a reformed and loosely held Calvinist.